The story appears on

Page A7

December 10, 2014

GET this page in PDF

Free for subscribers

View shopping cart

Related News

Home » Opinion » Foreign Views

Tiny steps to placate public won’t solve water problem

IN California, residential consumers are being fined for wasting water. The goal is to combat a severe drought by reducing residential consumption by 20 percent.

The trouble is that residential water use accounts for less than 15 percent of total consumption. The rest is used mainly for agriculture. Even if the desired cuts are achieved, they will account for less than 3 percent of total demand.

This and other pointless policies are what I have come to call “political placebos”: attempts by governments to demonstrate to their citizens that they are doing something — anything — to alleviate water shortages.

Placebos may have their place in medicine, but when they distract from efforts to address the underlying malady, they can do more harm than good. Measures like those in California are like instructing police officers to blare their sirens wherever they drive to create the impression that crime is being fought.

As climate change leads to deeper and more frequent droughts, the resulting water shortages will require new, sometimes difficult, solutions that go beyond futile attempts to placate the public.

The challenges are daunting.

In many places, underground water is considered the property of the owner of the land where the water is extracted, even when a well’s user is tapping an aquifer that spreads across thousands of square miles. As a result, there is little incentive to conserve. Meanwhile, widespread pumping lowers the level of the entire aquifer, potentially allowing salt water to encroach.

In some parts of California and Texas, a portion of the water supply is provided to consumers for almost nothing — delivered by a network of dams, reservoirs, and aqueducts that were built decades ago.

Hoover Dam, for example, which created Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the US, was built in 1936 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal.

Even if the federal government had intended to get a return on its investment by selling the water from Lake Mead, the dam’s construction costs have long since been amortized.

Unlike other commodities, the price of water is very often a political decision, subject to the influence of interest groups that lobby for subsidies.

Below cost

For example, most of the water used in agriculture in Texas and California is sold at a price below its cost. As a result, it is frequently wasted. The cost for an acre-foot of water in Dallas or Austin is at least US$150. Texas rice farmers, however, pay just US$10, and every year they consume the equivalent of a five-foot flood. Such a large quantity of water is not even necessary for rice farming; most of it is used to drown weeds.

The US federal government needs to intervene in the water industry. As long as these distortions persist, new technologies will struggle to compete. Rationalizing the water sector would allow new investors to enter the market.

Farmers in Texas and California need to stop growing rice, which should be imported from water-rich countries like Vietnam. Instead, US farmers should be encouraged to shift to other crops, such as sesame, with the government sharing the cost of replacement machinery needed to cultivate and harvest them.

The water sector should follow the example of the electric-power industry, where changes to federal regulations in the second half of the 20th century allowed independent power producers to use existing transmission lines.

It is time to turn off the tap on subsidized water and find a real cure for persistent water shortages.

 

Moshe Alamaro is a research affiliate in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at MIT. Copyright: Project Syndicate 1995-2014.




 

Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.

沪公网安备 31010602000204号

Email this to your friend